MG tourneys - what the

[Setsuna]

143 players at 2$ each (let's assume it's a classic 10% rake , making it 1.80+.20) . That should make a 257.40$ prizepool (not counting eventual replays/rebuys)... but as you can see , it's still paying out only 150$ - the advertised guarantee .


So , if each player's entry cost does NOT go into the prizepool , where's the point of making multiplayer tournies ? Seriously ?

[vinylweatherman]

143 players at 2$ each (let's assume it's a classic 10% rake , making it 1.80+.20) . That should make a 257.40$ prizepool (not counting eventual replays/rebuys)... but as you can see , it's still paying out only 150$ - the advertised guarantee .


So , if each player's entry cost does NOT go into the prizepool , where's the point of making multiplayer tournies ? Seriously ?

I have often said the house takes FAR more than the 5% margin on wagers they do on the normal slots. Some of these tournaments can pay LESS that 50% back to participants in prizes. As you have spotted, 100% of the rebuys and continues goes to the house, an effective RTP of ZERO for these additional "bets".

Not all tournaments are the same, there are a small number that end up returning MORE than 100% of what is taken in. I would suspect that there is cross subsidisation between these sub 50% RTP tournaments, and the few that have a prize pool greater than the sum total of buy ins.

Unlike the normal games, there is NO monthly RTP audit for these tournaments. I think there SHOULD be, mainly because of these obvious cases where the prize pool is FAR too low compared to the sum total of the buy ins. To be fair to players, the average RTP throughout the MGS tournaments should be the same as the average for the normal slots, 95%. It is pretty clear that MGS are "on the make" simply looking at the sit 'n' go events, that have a FIXED RTP of only 90%.